Date

Author

Publisher

Type

Metadata

Abstract

Introduction Ã Â¢ This study applied the principles of evidence based information practice to
clarify the role of information specialists and librarians in the preparation of Cochrane
systematic reviews and to determine whether information specialists impact the quality of
searching in Cochrane systematic reviews.
Objectives Ã Â¢ This research project sought to determine how the contribution of the person
responsible for searching in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews was reported;
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2006, 1:4
4
whether the contribution was recognized through authorship or acknowledgement; the
qualifications of the searcher; and the association between the type of contributorship and
characteristics of the search strategy, assessability, and the presence of certain types of
errors.
Methods
Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library 3 (2002).
Inclusion criteria: The study included systematic reviews that met the following criteria: one
or more sections of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy were utilised, primary
studies were either randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasiÃ Â¢ RCTs, and included and
excluded studies were clearly identified.
Data extraction: Two librarians assessed the searches for errors, establishing consensus on
discordant ratings.
Results Ã Â¢ Of the 169 reviews screened for this project, 105 met all eligibility criteria. Authors
fulfilled the searching role in 41.9% of reviews studied, acknowledged persons or groups in
13.3%, a combination in 9.5%, and the role was not reported in 35.2% of reviews. For the 78
reviews in which metaÃ Â¢ analyses were performed, the positions of those responsible for
statistical decisions were examined for comparative purposes. The statistical role was
performed by an author in 47.4% of cases and unreported in the same number of cases.
Insufficient analyzable data was obtained regarding professional qualifications (3/105 for
searching, 2/78 for statistical decisions).
Search quality was assessed for 66 searches across 74 reviews. In general, it was more
possible to assess the search quality when the searcher role was reported ( Ã 2=7.41, df=1,
p<.01). An association was found between the reporting of searcher role and the presence of
a consequential error (FisherÃ Â¢ s exact ptwoÃ Â¢ sided=.003). There was no association between the
number of consequential errors and how the contribution of the searcher was reported
( Ã 2= 15.536, df=16, p=.486).
Conclusions Ã Â¢ Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical
decisionÃ Â¢ making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role
reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies.